Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A war vehicle running low on fuel.
The words “Christopher Nolan” and “disappointment” are not words I would naturally associate… but for me, they apply where “Dunkirk” is concerned.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
What am I Still Doing Here?: My Life as Me
Book
'Unremittingly glorious. I and the world demand more and we shall thump our tin mugs on the table...
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Legion (2010) in Movies
Jun 30, 2018
Filled with cheese, but the cheese just makes the other parts stick together so well.
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review does contain MILD spoilers.
Legion is one of my favorite movies. I’ve seen it countless times and it has never lost it’s appeal. It’s ridiculous, filled with cliches, and definitely tries too hard for the reflective drama. It’s charmingly flawed and I love it.
Legion is filled with cheese, but the cheese just makes the other parts stick together so well. Like the Old Lady and the Ice Cream Man. My favorite scene in Legion involves the old lady. They made an excellent choice in casting there. You know from the moment that she says “But it’s gonna burn… your f*cking baby is gonna burn” that the evil is there, and it’s ON. What immediately always leaves me in stitches. (Yes, always. I’ve seen this movie like 5 times now.) And the Ice Cream man? Well, he defined the role for me. Freaking creepy.
And the cast members do their best to pull off the most ridiculous lines with a straight face. Willa Holland, whom you might be familiar with from The O.C., Gossip Girl, and Arrow, brings the sarcasm full bore. Dennis Quaid does disgruntled do-gooder father pretty well. (Although, I liked him better in this type of role in Day After Tomorrow.) Jeep – played by Lucas Black – is a very bland character, but that’s to be expected for the saintly protector type role he’s destined to play. Charles S. Dutton doesn’t have a lot of screen time, but when he’s there, you pay attention to him.
Legion is well-acted, nicely directed, and gives its horror a thin coating of humor. There’s plenty of action in the later half to keep almost anyone happy. There is really nothing new as this type of movie gets pretty endlessly recycled. However, put up against the others of its type, it stands out for me.
Legion is one of my favorite movies. I’ve seen it countless times and it has never lost it’s appeal. It’s ridiculous, filled with cliches, and definitely tries too hard for the reflective drama. It’s charmingly flawed and I love it.
Legion is filled with cheese, but the cheese just makes the other parts stick together so well. Like the Old Lady and the Ice Cream Man. My favorite scene in Legion involves the old lady. They made an excellent choice in casting there. You know from the moment that she says “But it’s gonna burn… your f*cking baby is gonna burn” that the evil is there, and it’s ON. What immediately always leaves me in stitches. (Yes, always. I’ve seen this movie like 5 times now.) And the Ice Cream man? Well, he defined the role for me. Freaking creepy.
And the cast members do their best to pull off the most ridiculous lines with a straight face. Willa Holland, whom you might be familiar with from The O.C., Gossip Girl, and Arrow, brings the sarcasm full bore. Dennis Quaid does disgruntled do-gooder father pretty well. (Although, I liked him better in this type of role in Day After Tomorrow.) Jeep – played by Lucas Black – is a very bland character, but that’s to be expected for the saintly protector type role he’s destined to play. Charles S. Dutton doesn’t have a lot of screen time, but when he’s there, you pay attention to him.
Legion is well-acted, nicely directed, and gives its horror a thin coating of humor. There’s plenty of action in the later half to keep almost anyone happy. There is really nothing new as this type of movie gets pretty endlessly recycled. However, put up against the others of its type, it stands out for me.
CARDIO3®Echocardiography HD
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
Comprehensive Atlas of Echocardiography is the first iOS version of CARDIO3®ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY...
Chance Encounters: Tales from a Varied Life
Book
"I met Frank Sinatra through Robert Maxwell. That's if you can be said to have met someone who was...
Jane Austen & Adlestrop: Her Other Family
Book
The story of Jane Austen's links with the idyllic village of Adlestrop and Stoneleigh Abbey, the...
The Greatest Raid of All
Book
A vivid account of the famous St Nazaire Raid that demonstrates the sheer bravery of the British...
Benedick Lewis (3001 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
Brilliant acting (2 more)
Multiple examples of excellent camera techniques, homaging a lot from that era
Superb direction
Rushed third act (1 more)
Could be too long for some people
A film for people who like to go to the cinema
Once upon a time in Hollywood is not QT’s best film but certainly not the worst. That award goes to Death Proof. It was a difficult film to market because when I got wind of his new film, it was advertised as revolving around the Sharon Tate murders/Charles “Charlie” Bronson but this film is so much more than that. The whole story meanders around like the roads around Cielo Drive, almost to the point of not really going anywhere and really just to enjoy the characters in this fictionalised retelling of that period.
It is quite astonishing that there are still people out there who would think this is a faithful interpretation of what happened and more so that QT has to publicly say ‘this is a story of fiction’ but I am no expert on the case, even though over the years I have dabbled into it through various books and news reports.
The main thing to get across is to go in with no expectations other than QT inevitably will put his spin on things and that, really, is what will draw audiences to this film. There’s always a bit to latch onto with QT films whether it be a character or the world he has created for those characters to live in or a reference to another film or, indeed, something else. It is what makes QT so appealing. He tells stories the way he wants to tell them. That said, the third act (which actually deals with the murders), although fun and frenetic, feels a little rushed and could possibly shows signs of studio meddling with what QT wanted to focus on. That’s the main criticism of this film but the rest of it will have film academics in years to come pick apart individual sequences and dissecting them into pointless philosophical notions and semantical (is that a word?) studies that are completely off point for a long time. Do I want to bore you with how clever QT is by being able to subtly put across to the viewer through camera techniques and direction his influences of 1950s and 60s television and cinema? No, if you’re a cinema fan you’ll get those references and more on repeat viewings. If you’re not a cinema fan, then it establishes enough world for you to warrant the hyperbole ‘fantastic escapism’. The point is you’re going to enjoy this film if you enjoy going to the cinema. Well, most of you. Some may spite that statement and say Legally Blonde is where it is at. Well, if that’s your stance, go rewatch Legally Blonde as the people who came to the cinema to actually enjoy this film have no time for that viewpoint.
See this if you love QT films. He throws in a lot of references to his body of work to make you nod to fellow audience members and silently say ‘I got that reference’. If you’re not a QT fan but a lover of cinema, especially American cinema, you’ll get more than just a kick out of it. There’s even something for the casual viewer if you’re willing to invest your time in it.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Untouchables (1987) in Movies
Dec 16, 2020 (Updated Dec 16, 2020)
A little melodramatic
(not) Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Untouchables
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
